AND · 18usc1962:enterprise.distinct-from-pattern
Boyle's operative rule is that enterprise and pattern remain distinct elements, while an association-in-fact needs purpose, relationships, and longevity rather than an additional structure requirement.
Exact element source
any enterpriseSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [500:514] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; 2 observed cases | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 1 | 1 | Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. — 567 F. Supp. 1146 (1983) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not · pleaded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Enterprise as an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (b),(c),(d) | distinct-from-pattern/enterprise-defined-only-by-predicate-acts | In fact, the alleged “enterprise” involving Southmost, Tri-State, Gellman, and Alfieri only can be understood in terms of the fraudulent acts that plaintiff claims the defendants committed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [18371:18560] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.As the Third Circuit interprets this third requirement, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the enterprise has an existence beyond that which is necessary merely to commit the alleged predicate racketeering offenses.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [17774:18001] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.I find that the First Count of plaintiff’s complaint fails to satisfy the separate existence requirement since it pleads the existence of an “enterprise” which is apparently synonymous with the defendants’ alleged “pattern of racketeering activity.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [18597:18846] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Enterprise as an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) Enterprise and pattern are separate elements, but the same evidence may prove both; no "ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern" instruction is required. | distinct-from-pattern/inferable-from-pattern-evidence | the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10143:10299] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is incorrectSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10338:10558] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.This instruction properly conveyed the point we made in Turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an assoeiation-in-fact enterprise.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [18075:18305] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.”
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
the existence of an enterprise is an element distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity and “proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10143:10299] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Boyle's operative rule is that enterprise and pattern remain distinct elements, while an association-in-fact needs purpose, relationships, and longevity rather than an additional structure requirement.
interpretation
if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is incorrect
Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
if the phrase is used to mean that the existence of an enterprise may never be inferred from the evidence showing that persons associated with the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, it is incorrectSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [10338:10558] (end exclusive); SHA-256 99ef954d45808712c583df14cb17e97e5d92bb262b6755f45cc77de65f9c6a51.Boyle's operative rule is that enterprise and pattern remain distinct elements, while an association-in-fact needs purpose, relationships, and longevity rather than an additional structure requirement.
historical-note
Historical pre-Boyle ascertainable-structure formulation in Seville/Chang (dated doctrine; not an operative post-Boyle requirement)
No source quotation recorded.